Then came hail.
It was probably not an omen of the apocalypse that Saturday night’s city election returns arrived accompanied by golf-ball-size ice cubes, but it was at least a sign we all could use another drink. The campaign parties buzzed steadily on into the muggy night, and one could be forgiven for wondering if the Houston suburbs, along with their saturated weather, had finally arrived in force.
What small lessons did we learn in this round? Probably the best news, at least in the short term, is that despite everything – and everything very much includes an often-bumbling school district – Austin voters still very much support the public schools, as all three bond propositions passed easily, including Proposition 3 that could arguably have earned opposition as nonemergency spending. The worrisome backstory, as the Chronicle‘s Richard Whittaker has reported, is that Props. 1 and 2 contained much that is either state-mandated or truly ordinary expenses, which should not require bonds (i.e., borrowed money) for funding – one more sign that the Legislature, under the flimsy disguise of “no new taxes,” continues to push public costs downward onto local taxpayers, even while it makes it more difficult for local authorities to raise money.
See, for egregious example, your next
city budget.
The worst news, I suppose, was the dismal 9% turnout, in the wake of grand presidential primaries, caucuses, and conventions that seemed to suggest a new awakening in public political spirit. I had hoped for at least some spillover into the local races (especially after the explosion of candidate forums), but maybe those presidential numbers reflect only the local ratings for The Daily Show. It’s at least arguable that the municipal elections have much more effective sway over daily lives than anything happening in D.C. – although in light of the last seven years, one can certainly understand the national electoral desperation. Here at the Chronicle, we’re institutionally committed to thinking globally, reporting locally – but at 9%, it’s worth wondering whether anybody’s really paying attention.
Handicapping ‘R’ Us
Probably the most telling failure in that regard is the run-off now required for the Austin Community College trustee Place 1 election – estimated cost, $400,000 – because the voters failed to notice that one of the three balloted candidates had effectively withdrawn weeks earlier. Even if that figure is inflated (and I’m sure it is), that seat (Tim Mahoney vs. Harrison Keller, FYI) will be determined by a handful of voters at yet another remove from the educational details and more likely focused on the coincident City Council run-off. So it goes for ACC, where more and more of our young people are entering higher education and less and less is being provided by our state leadership. Happy property taxes, people!
As for that singular council run-off, I’m interested in seeing what happens in the campaign month ahead, because other than random blog shots, Laura Morrison and Cid Galindo have not really had to run against each other. Morrison, with a commanding lead across the city (see Place 4 Handicapping), certainly has to be favored going in, but I can’t help but recall Jennifer Kim’s surprising 2005 run-off upset of Margot Clarke, overcoming a similar election-day deficit. Morrison’s support is broad but potentially shaky, roping together disparate neighborhood interests with enviro absolutists and anti-toll-highway drumbeaters – it’s not a slam dunk that Robin Cravey’s voters will automatically gravitate to her. And if her misleading TV ad campaign – a mythical Mordor looming on Lady Bird Lake – doesn’t get any better, there may well be backlash from voters already wary of widespread neighborhood NIMBYism.
Galindo, on the other hand, is still lesser-known across the city but will have deep pockets for TV and the more visible run-off support of the public-safety unions. He’s been pounded as Republican-lite, and on the stump he often seems more policy-wonk than politician, with apparently little stomach for the showbiz aspects of campaigning. But I recently watched him stop cold a forum crowd decrying too much low-income housing in the neighborhood – instead of grabbing the bait, Galindo quietly and effectively pointed out our shared moral responsibility to take care of the less fortunate. He shouldn’t be underestimated, either by the Morrison campaign or the voters.
Take a Stand
Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that I’m not much of a prognosticator, having suggested in this space last week that the Place 3 race between Kim and challenger Randi Shade might be close enough for a run-off. I can take some comfort in saying that nobody I’ve talked to since foresaw the Shade landslide, which at 64% was large enough to indicate that it was essentially over before the campaign began. Rightly or wrongly, Kim had been identified with several major public missteps (even acknowledged in her own advertising), and despite the fact that Shade remains relatively unknown, voters seemed to have concluded early on, “Anybody but Kim.”
It was understandable but disingenuous for her campaign to complain Saturday that a hostile media and a negative Shade campaign did Kim in, especially since the incumbent’s campaign specialized in specific and misleading negative attacks that seemed instead to have backfired. When you lose by nearly 40 points, it’s silly, not to mention bad form, to blame the refs.
At that same forum in which Galindo pointedly declined the invitation to pander, Kim suddenly announced (as much of the audience wanted) that she now opposes the subsidies for the Domain, although as recently as December, she had voted, unanimously with her council colleagues, to oppose future retail subsidies but maintain existing agreements (i.e., the Domain). Along with her embarrassing personal miscues that made headlines, it was finger-in-the-wind politics like this (on Wal-Mart, on toll roads, on council pay, on the city manager, etc.) that undermined Kim’s previous base and made her vulnerable to a challenger. It’s a lesson the newly elected as well as next May’s candidates should find reason to take to heart.
This article appears in May 16 • 2008.
